What Took Jesus So Long?

[ThomM]

I recently read an analysis of the New Testament that pointed out something I'd never really thought of before.

According to the Gospels, Jesus started spreading his word when he was 30, then walked around performing miracles for just a little while before he died.

My question is: Why did he wait until he was 30? Life expectancy back then was about 40. If he was God reborn in human form, wouldn't he have been prepared to spread the word at like 18 or 20? I know there's that one note about him as a child at the temple, but after that, what took him so long to get going again? Did it take the baptism by John to encourage him?

Maybe he needed some age to be respected, I don't know. It just seems weird that an omniscient being would wait so long.

The christ is a MYTH - there is not a single document - from his supposed time - that even mentions his name. When you actually read the bible -it is not possible for a single being to fulfill all of the claims, many contradictions - and supposed actions of the christ - period. He could not have two different BLOOD LINES - at a time when blood lines ONLY went through the father. He certainly cannot be all knowing -one of his last lines in the fairy tales - was - Father WHY HAVE you foresaken me - if he was all knowing - he would not have to ask. If he was part of the ONE GOD - then he WAS the father as well. There are LOTS of instances where the christ either did not know something - had to be told something - or asked question about something in the bible - all proof of the lack of ALL-Knowing. IT is simply nonsense.

Now - when you consider human created myths - remember that he was NOT supposed to be human - so life expectancy did not apply to him - BUT - respect would be a requirement. And in ancient times - it was the elders that received the respect - not a young person claiming to be god - since they had MANY of those.

So a young character would have NOT been believed - and likely would have been stoned to death for a number of things he did. IT required having the MYTH older to give some significance to him. Noting that the MYTH was still much younger than the Elders of the Jewish religion -along with the fact that the christ MYTH could NOT have fulfilled the prophecies of the messiah in the bible already there - is why the jews did not embrace xtianity - and still do not.

[Godscreated]

---

If we over look your current estimated age by 3 years Christ fits the social norm for what He did with His life. Which every other indicator has Christ following upto the start of His ministry.

---

---

Ah, but it was not my estimated age.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

So you see, through the word of God, Jesus was 30. Now, I may be mistaken, but I believe you once said that every word in the Bible is not perfect. This wouldn't be a big mistake, but it's one of the few facts we have to the historicity of Jesus. I could also say that Jesus wouldn't lie about his age, backwards or forwards. What purpose would that serve? Just so God could get a jump-start on spreading his word? And, to augment something I already asked, if God was willing to lie about his age, why not do it sooner?

And God is willing to lie:

1 Kings 22:23
Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

2 Chronicles 18:22
Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.

Jeremiah 4:10
Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.

Jeremiah 20:7
O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.

Ezekiel 14:9
And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.

2 Thessalonians 2:11
For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

So, maybe Luke made a mistake, or maybe God intended to lie.

---

But I still wonder: why age 30?

Listen to what Drich says, Christ was called rabbi many times in the gospels, why, because He started His ministry at the age of 30, this was the age of spiritual teachers of His time.

GC

[Minimalist]

Evidence or are you just making shit up again, G-C?

Neither Philo nor Josephus use the word "rabbi" and I would think they knew a shitload more about judaism more than you.

[Drich]

Ah, but it was not my estimated age.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Ah, but it is your estimated age. For right here in black and white luke records "about 30." You say defiantly, 30. Luke age=30+/- a few years. You on the other hand say 30 period!
Do you really need me to explain further?

So you see, through the word of God, Jesus was 30.

no. I see about 30 which 33 could be considered about 30. They did not count years as strictly as we do. That is why luke just a couple decades removed from Christ did not know exactly, so my question to you is how can you possible know 2000 years later?

(Did you see what I did there? I said 2000 years later and it is more like 1980 years later, but before I said anything I bet your like 2000 years is about right, why? Because we do not scrutinize vast amounts of time unless it matters. To them ones aprox age was good enough as well.)

Now, I may be mistaken, but I believe you once said that every word in the Bible is not perfect. This wouldn't be a big mistake, but it's one of the few facts we have to the historicity of Jesus. I could also say that Jesus wouldn't lie about his age, backwards or forwards. What purpose would that serve? Just so God could get a jump-start on spreading his word? And, to augment something I already asked, if God was willing to lie about his age, why not do it sooner?

you are making huge assumptions, that I am going to have to call you on before we can go any further. I never said the word of the bible is not perfect. I said the bible it self never claims to be perfect. That the doctrine e of InFallibility comes from marrying two seperate verses from two different authors.

Second where does Jesus claim to be thirty?

You guys create strawmen and jump to way too many unsubstainted conclusions about everything. This is why you all have such a hard time arguing with me. You assume too much most of the time rather than looking at the facts as they present, and taking them for face value.

Again, before we proceed first you must establish what you have said
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
[/quote]
Ah, but it is your estimated age. For right here in black and white luke records "about 30." You say defiantly, 30. Luke age=30+/- a few years. You on the other hand say 30 period!
Do you really need me to explain further?

So you see, through the word of God, Jesus was 30.

no. I see about 30 which 33 could be considered about 30. They did not count years as strictly as we do. That is why luke just a couple decades removed from Christ did not know exactly, so my question to you is how can you possible know 2000 years later?

(Did you see what I did there? I said 2000 years later and it is more like 1980 years later, but before I said anything I bet your like 2000 years is about right, why? Because we do not scrutinize vast amounts of time unless it matters. To them ones aprox age was good enough as well.)

Now, I may be mistaken, but I believe you once said that every word in the Bible is not perfect. This wouldn't be a big mistake, but it's one of the few facts we have to the historicity of Jesus. I could also say that Jesus wouldn't lie about his age,

You guys create strawmen and jump to way too many unsubstainted conclusions about everything. This is why you all have such a hard time arguing with me. You assume too much most of the time rather than looking at the facts as they present, and taking them for face value, and asking questions based on what I say. Rather your too busy trying to hold on to the demonized version of Christianity that cost you your faiths. It's like deep down you know you need this bastardized version of Christianity otherwise your justification for disbelief in God may waver.

Again, before we proceed first you must establish what you have said above.

[Sword of Christ]

The christ is a MYTH - there is not a single document - from his supposed time - that even mentions his name.

The New Testament was written from around his supposed time a few years after his death and the initial records of events were recorded orally. It doesn't automatically become a myth because the events were stored in a medium that didn't involve paper and ink. Sure it's possible that the account was embellished a little but we can't know exactly to what extent unless we build a time machine.

Father WHY HAVE you foresaken me - if he was all knowing - he would not have to ask.

Jesus had two natures as God he was all knowing as a man he just the same as us though free from sin.

If he was part of the ONE GOD - then he WAS the father as well.

Yes but he was also an ordinary man. It's not an easy thing to understand but this is because it's something that goes beyond what we can comprehend.

Now - when you consider human created myths - remember that he was NOT supposed to be human

Yes he was supposed to be human. You have no theological understanding of Christianity at all.

So a young character would have NOT been believed - and likely would have been stoned to death for a number of things he did.

Or crucified? That may have actually happened.

along with the fact that the christ MYTH could NOT have fulfilled the prophecies of the messiah in the bible already there - is why the jews did not embrace xtianity - and still do not.

It could be they got a few details of the Messiah right and few details wrong. They did make a number of failed prophecies but when it comes to Jesus they made a good number of hits. Certainly he fits with the prophesy of the suffering Messiah and he did bring the Pagans and Gentiles to the Jewish God.

[FallentoReason]

Yes but he was also an ordinary man. It's not an easy thing to understand but this is because it's something that goes beyond what we can comprehend.

Hehehehe...

http://atheistforums.org/thread-21285.html

Post #2

[Sword of Christ]

I don't really subscribe to the three separate persons in one loving relationship business as I think that's soft polytheism. I am a heretic in the sense that I chosen what to believe.

[FallentoReason]

I don't really subscribe to the three separate persons in one loving relationship business as I think that's soft polytheism. I am a heretic in the sense that I chosen what to believe.

What *do* you subscribe to then? Telling me what failed explanation you don't subscribe to doesn't help. If you'd like to tell me, then perhaps do so in that other thread, as I don't want to derail this one.

[Sword of Christ]

What *do* you subscribe to then? Telling me what failed explanation you don't subscribe to doesn't help. If you'd like to tell me, then perhaps do so in that other thread, as I don't want to derail this one.

God is one and Jesus was in some way fully one with God but also a fully normal human man who was born like everyone else. I'm closer to seeing him as type of supreme ascended master, someone more like the Buddha or an Avatar like Krishna. I would see the Holy Spirit as an aspect of Gods power that interacts with his creatures not a separate being. The Trinity business of three gods in one was something they just cooked up in councils it isn't mentioned in the Bible. If this were the middle ages I'd be burned at the stake for heresy along with yourself.

[FallentoReason]

What *do* you subscribe to then? Telling me what failed explanation you don't subscribe to doesn't help. If you'd like to tell me, then perhaps do so in that other thread, as I don't want to derail this one.

God is one and Jesus was in some way fully one with God but also a fully normal human man who was born like everyone else. I'm closer to seeing him as type of supreme ascended master, someone more like the Buddha or an Avatar like Krishna. I would see the Holy Spirit as an aspect of Gods power that interacts with his creatures not a separate being. The Trinity business of three gods in one was something they just cooked up in councils it isn't mentioned in the Bible. If this were the middle ages I'd be burned at the stake for heresy along with yourself.

I added this to the other thread...